The Administrative Judge (ALJ) in this case arising
under the employee protection provision of the Safe Drinking
Water Act; 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) (1982) (SDWA), issued a
Recommended Decision and Order (R.D. and O.) on September 28,
1989. The R.D. and O. held that Respondent discriminated against
complainant in violation of the SDWA and ordered Respondent to
reinstate Complainant to his position and pay him certain damages
and costs.
The Secretary issued a briefing schedule in this case on
October 16, 1989, and both parties filed briefs. On January 17,
1990, counsel for Respondent wrote a letter to the Director of
the Office of Administrative Appeals stating that the parties
have entered into a settlement and that Respondent's request for
review of the R.D. and O. is withdrawn.
The Secretary has held a number of times that cases arising
under the employee protection provisions of the statutes
enumerated in 29 C.F.R. § 24.1 (1989) may not be dismissed on the
basis of a settlement unless the settlement has been reviewed1
and it has been found to be fair, adequate and reasonable and not
[Page 2]
1 Section 300j-9 (i) (2) (B) (i) of the
SDWA provides in pertinent part
for termination of a proceeding "on the basis of a settlement
entered into by the Secretary . . . ." In lieu of being a
signatory to the settlement, it has been the Secretary's practice
to review the terms of the settlement entered into by the private
parties.
2 I would note that because the
ALJ's decision is only a
recommended decision, 29 C.F.R. § 24.6 (1989), a request for
review was not required to vest jurisdiction in the Secretary.
For the same reason, withdrawal of the request for review by
Respondent's counsel is not dispositive of this case.